The Public Policy Institute of California is out with their post election survey, and among the many issues they focus on is why Californians voted for or against Proposition 19, the initiative that would have legalized marijuana. This measure failed last month by a seven points, with 46.5% voting yes and 53.5% voting no.

According to the poll, Republicans were a main cause of Prop 19 failure. Only 27% of the Republicans who voted this year cast their ballot for Prop 19, while 73% voted against the measure. Democrats and independents supported the measure at near identical rates, 56% of Democrats and 55% of independents voted yes. This shows that at least some of Prop 19′s problems came down to bad timing. This 2010 midterm election had unusually high turnout among Republicans.

Most interesting, this poll provides an answer to why many voted against Prop 19:

The top reason given for voting yes on the measure, in an open-ended question, is that it would have allowed for the taxation of marijuana (29%). Yes-voters also say that marijuana use is a personal issue or not a big deal (12%), that it would have freed up the police/courts to do other things (11%), or that it would lead to less crime and drug violence (10%). Among no-voters, the top reasons given for opposition are that drugs should be illegal (33%), and that legalization is not good for the state (12%). Fewer cite child safety (8%), the potential conflict with federal law (7%), or that the initiative was poorly written (7%).

Having 7% vote no because they felt the initiative was poorly written was clearly very damaging to the campaign given that those voter were potentially persuadable and the fact that the measure in the end only lost by seven points.

The poll found that specific problems with the ballot measure itself, as opposed to the general idea marijuana legalization, likely cost Prop 19 important votes. While the measure failed 46.5% to 53.5%, the poll found the voters were evenly split 49%-49% on whether, in general, they think marijuana should be legal.

The data indicates the ultimate loss of Prop 19 was likely due to three factors: bad timing, failure of campaign messaging, and measure design issues.

With a few changes, Proposition 19 could likely have been drafted in a better manner from a purely politically perspective. I also feel the campaign didn’t do a sufficient job of pushing back against some of the opposition’s rather ridiculous attacks about the initiative’s design. While these issues likely cost the measure several points, the importance of the national trend of the election shouldn’t be ignored. It was just bad luck to have a measure oppose by 74% of Republicans on the ballot in an election with unusually high Republican turnout.

Overall, the poll is decent news for the marijuana reform movement going forward. With a ballot initiative that has a better design from a political perspective, a more nimble campaign prepared to respond quickkly to attacks on technical issues, and an election with a friendly turnout demographic; it is easy to picture how a marijuana legalization initiative in California could pass with a modest majority.

Having 7% vote no because they felt the initiative was poorly written was clearly very damaging to the campaign given that those voter were potentially persuadable and the fact that the measure in the end only lost by seven points.

Ballot initiative real life story. In Oregon, perhaps a decade ago, someone who now lives in mid-Hudson & has a position that precludes involvement in politicking, told me that she was involved in a ballot initiative when she lived in OR about mining. It polled 80-90% favorable. She wanted to word it: Miners must leave land the way they found it. By the time the progressives got done with it, it was 2 pages in 7-point type, complete with all kinds of regs. Miners demagogued it, esp about effect on employment and it lost by double digits. Another example of how progressives (or Ds, take your choice) are too dumb to live. Seems particularly relevant with this post on Prop 19.

Think you’re missing the point. It’s about how it was presented, not about the merits.

Having 7% vote no because they felt the initiative was poorly written was clearly very damaging to the campaign given that those voter were potentially persuadable and the fact that the measure in the end only lost by seven points.

It’s all about who you think the marginal voters were. Ask Karl Rove if you have any doubts.

In my example @ 3, the way it was written (assuming my witness is reliable) was clearly dispositive.

Either way, a badly written proposal, of which progressives are more prone than Rs, has lost a lot of votes. I’m not a big fan of messaging over substance, but I have noticed that the progressives pay way too little attention to the former. And if the vote is close, why take chances.

I’m not phrase turner, but network neutrality, S-Chip???!!! WTF. How lame can you get if you are trying to convince voters?

Writers of the initiative did not take into account input from the activists, patients, workers, and growers in the movement, the backbone of our Marijuana organizing all these decades. The measure failed in pot-growing areas, because the pro-Marijuana vote was against it. If the measure were seen by some as hurting the Medical Marijuana culture that has evolved since Prop 215. So that problem is not messaging, but intent. Poorly written, yes. Inconsiderate? Some people thought so.

I did phone banking in Oregon, California and South Dakota as I kinds had a feel for Arizona and thought the others need attention in that order. From what I could see, more resources and a longer lead time for the education process would have diminished the kinds of misconceptions and biases that I kept running into from the folks older than 20 years old.

By the way, based on my research, I don’t think cannibis with little to no THC should be pharmaceuticalized as it looks to me not much different than trying to pharmaceuticalize a food even more beneficial than blue green algae. As for the stuff with significant THC content, folks have non-prescription access to far worse stuff so it sounds hypocritical to say that this form of cannabis should also be by prescription only. Limiting it for use by age of consent folks does make sense as is done with tobacco. Also, I am not at all keen on allowing the insurance industry (the banksters) to be come gatekeepers on this.

With a ballot initiative that has a better design from a political perspective

How about just a better initiative, period, and let the political perspective take care of itself. Part of the problem with 19 was the perception that it was a Dem ploy to get younger/more progressive voters to the polls, prompting backlash.